An Open Letter to Steve Moore From His Second Cousin

[Above: Steve Moore’s presentation at Seattle U in April; Candace Dempsey faces the wrong way]

I posted the following letter on Perugia Murder Files upon learning that the former FBI agent named Steve Moore was indeed the same person as my cousin Steve Moore.

I had only been vaguely aware of an FBI supporter of Knox’s until reading recently about Michelle Moore’s incident with Prosecutor Mignini in the courtroom in Perugia. Through tracking down common relatives on Facebook, I was able to confirm that Knox supporter Steve Moore was indeed my relative.

It’s my fear that Steve and Michelle have staked out such an extreme position (with accompanying behavior) even in light of Knox’s acquittal, that their actions will lead to disaster for themselves and/or others.

I could not communicate directly with him as his Facebook page is locked down tight. It’s my hope, that by communicating publicly, the combatants on this one issue can be reminded that their opponents remain human beings in search of justice and should be treated accordingly.

Dear Steve,

Let me introduce myself. I’m your second cousin. Your grandmother Thelma Lodwig Moore was my great aunt. You can take a day to investigate my real identity! LOL Just teasing. I’ll help you out by putting my name on this for you at the bottom. (Though my guess is that you’d have to ask Gwen or Don or Kathy or Bill or Mark or Lynn or Debbie or Donna or your parents to verify my relational status as I actually don’t expect you to recognize my name.)

First of all, I want to say that I have no intention of disparaging you or debating Amanda Knox’s guilt or innocence. As my reaction to her freedom is quite the opposite to yours…well, if we ever meet up at a family reunion (as if that would ever happen) we’d just have to agree not to discuss the topic. I also have no intention of including Michelle in this letter outside of two public incidents that concern me.

Secondly, let me just answer the question you might have right now which is most likely, “What the hell?”

Though I’m not a close relative, I have to say that I am concerned about you.

I skimmed your blog and, well, let me quote you:

For this to happen, though, pompous prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, forensic perjurer Patrizia Stefanoni, and mind-reading detective Edgardo Giobbi (and others), must be prosecuted for their corruption. The judge who rubber-stamped the lies in the first trial, Massei, must also be called to the bar of justice””or back to law school. That is what will occupy some of my time for the next few years, I’m sure.

You are going to spend years working towards vengeance on people who were most likely just doing their jobs? (Classy name calling there too.)

Combining this with Michelle’s action toward Mignini in a foreign country’s court, I have to wonder what’s going on in your guys’ heads.

Not only that, but when Doug Bremner accuses the people of this site of “pedophilic grooming” Michelle cheers him on.

Is this how Christians love their enemies? It might be a stretch but it’s weird to think that my cousin’s wife was cheering someone calling me a pedophile.

It’s ok if you think Amanda is innocent, but you seem bent on a path to destroy people and are engaging in just as much mudslinging as anyone else. I honestly thought your side of the family was better than that.

(It’s really the thought of you going after innocent people that spurred me to write this.)

I understand that you’re upset that Amanda lost “four years of her life”. However, she was convicted of falsely accusing her boss of the murder. So, we’re talking only one year extra that she had to serve. My question is this: With all that you must have encountered as an FBI agent, why would you choose this one individual as your cause? There was no other social ill or issue as important? She trumps Troy Davis who was most likely innocent and EXECUTED by the state of Georgia?

It’s my hope that you would expand the use of your skills for something more than helping one middle-class white girl. (I also hope that the answer to those questions above isn’t “It doesn’t matter! I got a book deal!” )

If you’re wondering how I wound up here on PMF, let me state that nobody tracked me down or initiated with me. You see, I’ve been reading up on this case from day 1. I don’t claim to be an expert and I haven’t read the Massei report (though I am on page 60 and will read the appellate report as well.)

But as I’ve followed this case I’ve felt the need to filter out certain biases in the media. These biases would range from “Foxy Knoxy is depraved! See the photo of her with the machine gun! She has sex! She’s guilty!” to “Amanda is an innocent! She went to a birthday party when she was seven! See the photo of her holding a soccer ball!” Filtering out these biases is how I found this site. I’ve always been an advocate for a sober account of the evidence.

This site hosts one of the better discussions in that regard. I haven’t posted here in the past, but enjoy reading some of the discussion here from time to time when there’s a development in the case.

I know Peggy Ganong must be one of your mortal enemies, but I’ve corresponded with her even before I knew you (as my cousin) were involved in this. I don’t know what’s all passed between the both of you (though I do know that there was an inference about white supremacist groups that I would disagree with her on your behalf), but from my interaction with her I find her to be an incredibly decent and intelligent person. Not at all who Bruce Fisher and Doug Bremner describe.

In my mind, if they can be so wrong about Peggy, then I worry about what else they can be so wrong about and what they’ve gotten you involved in.

I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here in that I’m hoping you’re sincerely fighting for someone you truly feel is innocent.

But if this is just a way to get on TV?

Then don’t call me for that family reunion.

Your cousin,

Jeff Friend

Posted by Jeff Friend on 10/19/11 at 05:18 PM in Hoaxers from 2009Steve Moore

Tweet This Post


Very interesting.  Wow.

What was with the zebra in the presentation?

Posted by believing on 10/19/11 at 11:12 PM | #

If I understand the translation, this Oggi article suggests Steve Moore might have a future in providing personal security for Knox, as apparently he served this role during the acquittal.

It also has some other interesting tidbits including the fact that the Mellas put about $1 million into Knox’s defense, which totaled about $2 million. Who knew the ISP business was so profitable?

And that Simon and Schuster has offered $2 million for Knox’s boring prison diary.

Posted by brmull on 10/19/11 at 11:48 PM | #

Hi believing. That zebra was something to do with the nature of the prosecution’s case. Steve’s presentation was rambling and disjointed with poor use of visuals and relied heavily on sarcasm and personal attacks.

On PMF they remarked that he seemed in a bubble and some in the small audience chose then to walk out.

James Raper reviewed the presentation here.

SomeAlibi reviewed the presentation here.

Sarcasm and personal attacks are the achilles heels of the pro-Knox movement, as Jeff is sensibly and fairly pointing out to Steve. The same message applies to Bruce Fischer and Doug Bremner who also publicly boil with rage.

They will never persuade large numbers in that mode, and millions now need to be persuaded, or Knox wont ever have a peaceful life. They say Casey Anthony is hated and Knox loved but wheres the evidence of the love?

A slow-moving trainwreck of a position, Steve Moore’s, from the Amanda Knox point of view. She would do well not to have him around. .

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/19/11 at 11:49 PM | #

Hi brmull. As you yourself have surely pointed out Oggi is the highly suspect mouthpiece for the K-M clan in Italy.

It reads like they are trying to salt a very slow market for the books, interviews, and films.

I checked out who is behind the one known movie offer and he has several small ones in the pipeline but as of now he has never put a single movie out.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/11 at 12:33 AM | #

Jeanne Sager is stupidly or maliciously reporting old “news” about the Kerchers that has already been shot down.

If anyone has the email address for this arch incompetent, please write to her and bring her up to date.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/11 at 03:41 AM | #

I sent her a tweet. There’s no way to stop the idiots of this world from getting a blog.

Posted by brmull on 10/20/11 at 04:11 AM | #


Having read some of the comments on the links you posted (both excellent, btw) I do want to point out that Steve did indeed start in the FBI in the early ‘80’s. (If anyone chooses to believe me, that’s another story.)

However, even if he had a stellar career, he should be held accountable for those things which he says that are false. There is no excuse for misrepresenting facts or misrepresenting the prosecutions case.

And even if he was doing a great job for Knox and was entirely correct about her innocence, there is no excuse for his attitude towards those he opposes.

If there’s one thing that I abhor it’s intellectual dishonesty. The more I read about his commentary in regard to the Knox case, the more concerned I become that he’s purposefully being dishonest.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 10/20/11 at 05:53 AM | #

@brmull, there was a rumour about George and Cindy Anthony having a book deal with Simon and Schuster but denied by the publisher.

I think they are all floating some very big trial 😊 baloons.

Posted by Ergon on 10/20/11 at 06:58 AM | #


The zebra symbolizes the truth: is it a white zebra with black stripes or a black zebra with white stripes?

It is not a question of semantics (Gödel’s theorem).  It is believed that there exists true (and false) statements that can never be proved or disproved.  Evidences are not proofs, they are only supporting documents.

Perhaps the real nature of some of these people will remain ever elusive.

Posted by chami on 10/20/11 at 07:48 AM | #

Question: I have not read everything on this case, but I still can’t figure out how come no DNA of AK was found in MK’s room, nothing on Meredith body or on the floor… no hair, for example of AK or Sollecito? Let me know. Thanks.

Posted by irne on 10/20/11 at 09:07 AM | #

Question: I have not read everything on this case, but I still can’t figure out how come no DNA of AK was found in MK’s room, nothing on Meredith body or on the floor… no hair, for example of AK or Sollecito? Let me know. Thanks.

Posted by irne on 10/20/11 at 09:07 AM | #

Hi Irne,

When the scientific police go to a crime scene they have to guess the most likely places the perpetrator would have touched. They can’t take DNA from everywhere—it’s too much work, it costs too much, and may even be counterproductive if they find DNA from lots of people who visited the cottage who they can’t identify. I’ve read that they took about 100 DNA swabs total.

I don’t know how many were from Meredith’s bedroom, but Guede’s DNA was found in 4 places in that room: her groin area, her wrist sleeve, her bra, and her purse. These places were checked because the police believed she had been sexually assaulted and robbed. There were undoubtedly other places that Guede’s DNA could have been found. Likewise, there were probably places where Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA could have been found, if the police had believed at that time there were multiple attackers.

Under many multiple attacker scenarios, Knox is wielding the knife—so her physical contact with the victim would have been minimal. Guede was assaulting her. So that leaves Sollecito restraining her by the face and neck. There was so much blood in that area that getting a good DNA swab would be difficult if not impossible. Maybe someone here knows—did they even try?

Posted by brmull on 10/20/11 at 10:15 AM | #

Dear Jeff Friend, if you’re reading the Massei report, be prepared for some chilly surprises. I had been rather at peace with the first trial result…until I read the sentenza. Now I can only subscribe to Judge Hellman’s view: I don’t know that they are innocent, but their conviction simply couldn’t stand. That sentenza alone , without checking it on the evidence,  stinks to high heaven. And it would seem that compared with the evidence it gets worse.

Posted by sae on 10/20/11 at 11:25 AM | #

Hi SAE. The Massei report is simply a summary of a far greater body of evidence presented to the trial jury in 2009 which was not presented to the appeal jury in 2011 except in the sense that it was available.

The prosecution case at trial was fast, precise and very extensive. The defense rebuttal was hesitant and weak and sessions were several times canceled while they tried to come up with additional points. Read our 2009 posts and you will see.

The prosecution covered hundreds of evidence points and as you may know even one can be enough for conviction. The depiction of the events in Meredith’s room took a whole day in closed session and this was not repeated for the appeal.

Nor was the prosecution multimedia presentation which Comodi and Mignini used in summation. It is unlikely the jury pored through all the autopsy photos and understood what they “said”. Those photos have never been publicly released.

It came across as an extremely cruel crime where Meredith was the victim of a gang assault and was left clutching both sides of her neck to stop the blood running out while her door was locked and phones removed. The sentences did fit.

As you may know in the second appeal Cassation will not work simply from the Massei report. It is likely based on typical procedure to acquire a better sense of the whole case than the Hellman jury apparently did.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/11 at 01:46 PM | #

@Peter Quennel

I am astonished at the number of pro-amanda sites that spew out misinformation. A lot of the sites seem to have been created by the same web developer. They seem to have the same format. Similar presentations etc.

The BBC reported in 2009.

‘Amanda’s family hired a heavy-hitting Seattle public relations firm to turn around the “super tanker of disinformation” connected to the 22-year-old A-grade student.

Their tactics of instant rebuttal and undermining the credibility of the opposition are commonplace in rough-and-tumble corporate America.

The provincial Italian prosecutors were genuinely back-footed by their power.

Bloggers were another first. Surprisingly, many sites dedicated to the case were high-quality and pointed to the future of how crime reporting might be done’.

Do you think that this site has been ‘infiltrated’ at any time?

Posted by starsdad on 10/20/11 at 01:59 PM | #

Hi brmull. The excellent points you make were made very clearly at the 2009 trial. Even with the limitations on DNA evidence collection that you mention the DNA evidence was a lot more solid than the current rewrite of history concedes. And Mignini thought the case could well have been made without it.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/11 at 02:04 PM | #

Hi starsdad. The good news is that all those misinformation sites have low readership. Even the most read among them has only about 1/4 of the readers of PMF and TJMK. That is presumably why they try to get mileage out of the posts on Ground Report.

We have never been hacked but there are periodic attempts to drop off here some of the deliberate confusions to be found over there. Little of this matters in Italy, where the whole PR scheme is pretty well below their radar.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/20/11 at 02:11 PM | #

For brmull,

Hi, your reply to irne brings up a very valid point - that the scientific police were not aware of the multiple attacker scenario and so did not test accordingly. This is a core point constantly brought up - the absence of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA - so are you sure that you can substantiate this - have the police or prosecution claimed this themselves? and are you sure of the timelines - if I remember correctly was the prosecution not very quick in advancing the multiple attacker scenario - perhaps before the scientific police had actually finished their work.

Whilst on the topic of the scientific police - the staged break in and the glass fragments that were subsequently transported straight out of the room, down the corridor to the exit door without entering Meredith’s room. Has this finding ever been fully substantiated, criticized or discredited - it would seem to provide total proof of a staged break in - but in hindsight I just can’t imagine how a window pane smashed with a rock could shatter into such minute particles that they are unknowingly carried on someones shoe soles.

Posted by John Forbes on 10/20/11 at 03:14 PM | #


The best source of DNA is body fluids- blood, saliva etc. but not urine, sweat etc. but remember that the red blood cells have no DNA.  If I just touch a cup or a plate, my DNA will be unlikely to be transferred.  A rubbing action is needed. Hand to hand fights (like in good old days) leave plenty of DNA.  Dead skin cells are poor source of DNA.  RG reported some cuts and probably his blood was the source for DNA on several objects.  His DNA was also found in the fecal matter left unflushed in the toilet.

I do not claim to know all, but the killers were prepared and were sophisticated in their action.  Guess how many times AK took shower (compare with a normal person) within the next 12 hours!  This is a psychological reaction - feeling dirty!

It is very likely that there were no (or very little) struggle- one vs one would have left lots of evidences.  The presence of the table lamp of AK near the bed also suggests that the killers took care to clean up the evidences.  This is the only explanation for lack of DNA of AK and RS at the scene.

AK reported the “scream” and this single evidence links her to the murder scene.  She could not have guessed or imagined the scream which was later (right?) confirmed by several others.

I consider the eccentric behaviour of AK for several days subsequent to the incident as psychological evidence of guilt.

Posted by chami on 10/20/11 at 04:53 PM | #

@John Forbes

Regarding the scientific police. They were aware that there was evidence of a break-in and one supposes that every possible effort was put into detecting evidence in Filomenas room. The ‘break-in’ occured on a wet cold night. There is no evidence of anyone attempting to climb the wall. There should be evidence of footprints on the ledge. No fingerprints on the window lock or ledge.

When people argue that there is no evidence of Amanda in Merediths room, I would suggest that the more incriminating evidence is that there is no evidence that Guede was in Filomenas room. The defense has had years to come up with an explanation without result.

If Guede had broken in and decided to use the toilet, one would expect the ‘fragments of glass trail’ to be towards and in the bathroom. How did Guede know that there was a bathroom hidden away? It seems to suggest that he was directed by someone to use that bathroom.

Posted by starsdad on 10/20/11 at 05:14 PM | #

Thank you to everybody for answering to my question. I understand a little more now why there was no DNA of AK and Sollecito in MK bedroom (or on her body). I hope that the future prosecutors in the next appeal (if there is one) will take the time to read every single thread posted on this great web site.I think you guys are doing a great job with the info available and would be great prosecutors!

Posted by irne on 10/20/11 at 05:59 PM | #

Hi believing:

“What was with the zebra in the presentation?”

Pete commented that that zebra was something to do with the “nature of the prosecution’s case”.

Chami commented that the zebra symbolizes the truth.

Here’s a more specific perspective:

Inexperienced physicians, medical residents, and medical students are attracted to exotic explanations of common signs and symptoms.

Their mentors remind them:

“Common things commonly occur”,

or more vividly:

“ When you hear the thunder of hoof-beats suspect horses, not zebras.”

We all agree that Moore was trying to ridicule “the nature of the prosecution’s case.”

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/20/11 at 07:25 PM | #

The best evidences in this case are the “negative evidences”- or the lack of evidences. That the break in was staged has not been disputed (only weakly disputed by the defence).  Who did it then? In the same way, the table lamp.  Who took the table lamp and why?  Finally the scream has been disputed (by the defence; it is their job to challenge all the evidences) but only weakly.  A shrill sharp sound can travel several kilometres (only in open space; closed room can severely reduce the range) at night when we have very little background noise.  One time or other, JG and AK have both admitted to hearing the scream (when they had no idea of the evidences collected by the police).  These are the basic facts in my opinion.

Next comes the mobile phones and the records of calls.  These are not disputed at all. Both AK and RS switched off their phones and that is something directly pointing to their involvement.  They have not given any convincing excuse for this action.  The two mobiles (MK) were discarded somewhat away (where it comes under a different tower). These two phones should have been switched off and then discarded where they have discarded other items (that were never found). I think this mistake happened because they were nervous and they wanted to get rid of the phones at the earliest. The other knife, some clothes and a pair of shoes and some other trivia were disposed off sometime later.

The clean-up was done - and the body was moved. Here the defence is almost silent.  I take it as established. I believe that was done at least one hour after the murder.  Why? Some foot prints were apparently cleaned but still some mark was left.  This can be explained only if the clean-up was not done immediately.  I also think that the sex attack was also staged.

The footprints suggest that both AK and RS were barefooted.  I also think that all the three (AK, RS and JG) were naked (not sure about JG, though) when the murder took place.  And the DNA evidence comes last.

I am only 1/3 way of the Massei report but I think he is only thinking in terms of defence arguments.  I am only trying to figure out what is missing evidence.  When the police starts their investigation, they form a model in their mind and follow the conventional intuition.  Once all the evidences are in one place, they need to find the most probable scenario and must explain all the collected evidence in hand. One good alibi can throw away the whole picture. What is needed at this time is a good timelime.

The case is not as complicated as it may appear.  I think AK is a fan of CSI.

Posted by chami on 10/20/11 at 07:54 PM | #

Hi chami - like your approach:

“The best evidences in this case are the “negative evidences”- or the lack of evidences…..”

As you continue through the next 2/3rds of Massei you’re going to find some really good stuff.

I’m trying to relocate the photos of Meredith’s broken-in door, but have not yet found the right Post.

Will someone help me?

Meredith’s door was found locked, with no key in the keyhole on either side.

Could Meredith’s door have been opened from the inside without a key?

This seems relevant to analysing the actions of whoever locked the door.

If Meredith was thought to be already dead when the door was locked, locking-it suggests a desire only to delay the discovery of her murder.

If Meredith was NOT thought to be already dead when the door was locked, locking-her-in suggests a desire also to prevent Meredith from seeking help.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/20/11 at 09:44 PM | #

My own experience with out-moded European doors like that is that once locked with a key, they cannot be opened from the inside.  The villa was obviously built quite awhile ago.  My house in Europe has exactly the same type of locking inside doors.  I was always afraid one of my kids would lock himself/herself in so I hid the keys when they were small.

Posted by believing on 10/20/11 at 11:28 PM | #

Good article about the Stefanoni’s response to the DNA situation - it was not proven that Sollecito’s DNA was not on the bra clasp.  It was too rusted after four years - which I am surprised at as I have some 4 year old bras with clasps which have never rusted - to be tested again and then the defense cast doubt upon the procedures used in the initial testing.  The knife was not allowed to be retested again by the prosecution.

There is a lot of misinformation out there especially among screaming bloggers who shout that there was NO DNA EVIDENCE found on the knife or the bra clasp.

Posted by believing on 10/20/11 at 11:35 PM | #

So RG implicates AK and RS and states he wasn’t in the room when the murder took place. And by saying they weren’t even there, AK and RS implicate RG as the sole killer. The evidence associated with the case suggests that all three were there when Meredith was murdered. So who’s telling the truth?

AK has changed her story so many times I wonder whether she even knows the truth any more. And RS altered his testimony about where AK was on the night of the murder before staying silent for the best part of four years. RG seems to be a rather unpleasant character that has also altered certain parts of his story (for instance where he first met Meredith). But his story would appear to be slightly more believable than AK and RS trying to persuade everyone that they were not even there when the killing took place. In my opinion whilst RG’s story is unlikely it may be the closest version of the truth that is ever likely to come out and I think it is overlooked all too easily.

The three people mentioned above are the only people who know exactly what happened to Meredith and it must be sickening for the entire Kercher family to know that not one of them will have the decency to tell the truth. But maybe RG already has told the truth (or at least a close approximation) and AK and RS know that they can never reveal the truth without spending the rest of their lives in jail. In his report Micheli completely discredits RG’s testimony saying that by running off to Germany he would have been able to follow the unfolding investigation and get his story straight. This is perfectly true but wasn’t AK afforded a similar privilege whilst in prison, albeit not over the same time scale? (Poor Mr Lumumba spent some weeks in jail while AK, having accused him said nothing).

And there are certain indicators that RG’s story wasn’t necessarily that of a fiction writer, or there wouldn’t have been so many anomalies. (If you were going to lie, at least make it believable). As a for instance if you have just accused AK of the murder, why point out that she rang the doorbell to get into her own house for what seemed to be the sole purpose of killing Meredith. My question is, does anybody else think that whilst RG is far from being an endearing character it is possible that he has been set up and is in part being punished for not being as clever as the other accused parties?

Posted by People lie, evidence doesnt. on 10/20/11 at 11:58 PM | #

Hi people,

I have also thought that RG was made to take all the blame. He is far from innocent, but I think they made him the fall guy. Who knows what the outcome would have been if he didn’t run away.

Posted by Miriam on 10/21/11 at 12:06 AM | #

For starsdad or anyone who knows,

Thanks for your reply re. the staged break in query I posted.What I specifically wanted to know was somewhere on the internet, I’m practically sure it was this site, I came across a reference that the scientific police had discovered that whoever had staged the break in had left footsteps/traces of glass particles all the way from the bedroom and along the corridor to the front door - concrete proof, in other words, that the break in was staged. Problem is I can’t seem to trace that reference - looked all over this site. Can anyone confirm this?
Many thanks

Posted by John Forbes on 10/21/11 at 03:25 AM | #

The story which is in the National Enquirer, an American tabloid available at every supermarket counter, which talks about the drug deal that supposedly took place outside the villa between RG and another man on the fateful night.

If this is true, and the other man has been arrested then his fingerprints and DNA must be on file with the police department and have not been matched up with any of the evidence found at the scene.

Posted by believing on 10/21/11 at 03:57 AM | #

Hi Believing.  The paper The Enquirer is a joke here in the US. Anything written in it is about as believable as, well, something Amanda Knox says.

@John Forbes, I haven’t seen anything about the glass being tracked. I think more compelling is the fact that the glass was on top of the ransacked items.  Aside from the police and investigators pointing this out, the testimony of Filomena Romanelli also makes it clear that the break in was staged.

Posted by mikeb on 10/21/11 at 04:25 AM | #

@John Forbes.  I think a piece of glass was found in Meredith’s room - perhaps this is what you are thinking of?    It turned out not to be glass from the broken window.

Posted by jaybee51 on 10/21/11 at 04:58 AM | #

@jaybee51, Do you recall the source for the glass in Meredith’s room not being from the window. Nadeau said the source was never identified, which didn’t stop the defense from claiming it came from Guede’s shoe. It’s about the side of the tip of your finger. How that would get tracked across the house and finally deposited in Meredith’s room is a mystery. The glass is smaller than a fingertip and had no blood on it.

No glass was tracked as far as I know, but there is tons of evidence of a staged break-in even without that.

Posted by brmull on 10/21/11 at 06:06 AM | #

@cardiol, I think @believing is correct about Meredith’s bedroom door.

There are pictures of her’s and Knox’s door here (you might have to register):

It’s an old fashioned mortise lock that requires a skeleton-type key to lock on either side. We know from the photo that Knox left her key in her door all the time. I don’t know if Meredith did the same, but in any case none of Meredith’s keys were found.

The front door was kept locked all the time and also could not be opened from the inside without a key. The IJP folks point to this as evidence that Guede attacked the victim because he couldn’t get out. This seems like a thin reed. Filomena’s window is extremely hard to enter, but dropping out of it onto the grass would be well within Guede’s abilities.

Posted by brmull on 10/21/11 at 06:36 AM | #

Dear Jeff Friend:

I’m not sure you’re being totally fair to your long-lost cousin. I don’t know what field you are in, but Steve’s long career in the FBI examining crimes gives him plenty of credibility in examining this case. When he says he will spend “some of his time” over the next years on this case, he most likely is alluding to the long time this case has taken to date and the time it will take for the problems with this case to be examined in Italy. 

His analysis shows this case was not honestly or competently prosecuted and like the prosecutor in the Duke rape case, Mike Nifong, Giuliano Mignini and those close to him should be investigated for their actions during this trial. He also lays out an excellent analysis of Amanda Knox’s interrogation and coerced confession. During this interrogation, an exhausted and terrorized Amanda breaks and gives the interrogators the facts as they have given by them to Amanda. On her own, she never would have implicated the one person in Perugia she knew had a perfect alibi, black or not.

As for causes, he originally got involved in the Amanda Knox case due to a light challenge from his wife, before the Troy Davis case ever arose. But I believe you are right that Mr. Davis should not have been executed.

Posted by Rob54 on 10/21/11 at 08:31 AM | #


Here is a nice, calm if not impartial, discussion of Steve Moore:

Note Moore’s basic errors in understanding of forensics, like how the use of luminol affects the subsequent use of TMB. (Both agents react with the iron in blood so if you apply luminol first it “uses up” the iron and you are much less likely to get a positive TMB test. Many people don’t know this, but an experienced crimefighter should.)

“His analysis shows this case was not honestly or competently prosecuted”—Moore’s motto is “When you hear the sound of hooves outside, think horses not zebras”. By his on words he is particularly poorly equipped to investigate a case that turns out to be a zebra.

“Giuliano Mignini and those close to him should be investigated for their actions during this trial”—Why don’t Knox and Sollecito sue him then? There’s nothing stopping them except the knowledge that Mignini acted properly and they have no case.

“[Moore] also lays out an excellent analysis of Amanda Knox’s interrogation and coerced confession.”—I burst out laughing when he said that Knox was submitted to something just shy of waterboarding. In truth, Knox was taken for interview at 11pm. The interpreter didn’t arrive till 12:30 and she implicated herself within an hour. Amnesty International wasn’t interested in hearing about it.

“On her own, she never would have implicated the one person in Perugia she knew had a perfect alibi, black or not.”—Lumumba did NOT have a perfect alibi; that’s why it took him two weeks to get out of jail. She implicated someone who, according to him, was about to fire her from her job.

“As for causes, [Moore] originally got involved in the Amanda Knox case due to a light challenge from his wife”—She seems really dumb. I usually figure that if a man marries a dummy he’s either really insecure or really dumb himself. Just me.

Posted by brmull on 10/21/11 at 09:17 AM | #

Points to add to brmull’s excellent list to confirm that Jeff Friend was being eminently fair in a way that Steve Moore rarely has been - a perpetual unfair media and internet demonizer of many good people including the FBI’s respected counterparts in Rome.

1) On his crime scene qualifications. Moore has never posted his detailed career biography. The qualified murder crime scene investigators in the FBI are only a small very specialized career group, because murder investigations are for the most part state or local with help from the FBI’s labs and databases. Nor has Moore ever listed precisely what evidence he examined, which was in Italian on the other side of the world from him.

2) On the “confession” which Moore etc claim was extracted under torture. In fact Mignini barely said a word on the night of Amanda’s two interviews. At the first he was not even present and she collapsed fast once she heard Sollecito had whipped the rug out from under her.

At the second interview at her own request AK devoted the time to writing out her allegations against Patrick and Mignini has said he asked her no questions as no lawyer was present.

3) On Mignini’s supposed demonization of AK. Both Micheli and Massei accepted Mignini’s conclusion that the attack on Meredith had sex crime elements, and he never made any claims about satanism.

4) On the forensics. In characteristic shoot-from-the-hip fashion Moore started out criticising the Perugia forensic unit, not even realising that there is no such thing and that all forensics were handled by the Rome counterpart to the FBI.

5) On Moore’s media presentations. Both James Raper and SomeAlibi (both lawyers) took apart his most extensive presentation, at Seattle University in April, where he sounded shrill and confusing, The links to their posts are at the top of this thread.

In my view he has done neither his wife not Amanda any favors by leaping in lustily. The real evidence is strong, nobody in the Italian system has been proved to be other than professional and fair, and public belief in Amanda’s complete denial is weak and declining, especially in Italy. His rabidly hard line has helped paint Knox into a corner, possibly for life, and done the exact opposite of what her mental state seems to require.

For her sake her parents should show him the door.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/21/11 at 02:09 PM | #

Here is my take on Steve Moore.

Dateline employed former high ranking FBI supervisor Clint Van zandt to investigate and comment on the case.

Why did no reputable media company use his service?  He was a college security guard who jumped on the gravy train.

Posted by starsdad on 10/21/11 at 02:36 PM | #

Thanks for the photo link brmull, I hadn’t seen those before.  I felt physically sick when looking through the photos, especially the scenes from her room near the wardrobe.  It makes it all a reality rather than an intellectual exercise.  Who could do such a thing?  She was there to learn Italian, to have fun, and then after just two months to end up murdered in her own room?  I myself went on an overseas study year and at the time felt perfectly safe and never worried when walking around the towns at night with my friends.  It’s so brutal and horrifying.  The bra clasp clearly was cut off evenly and carefully.  It is a straight cut.  I can’t imagine that RG could do that alone while the MK was struggling as well as molest her and use a knife.  And if it wasn’t in order to get the bra off, for what reason would he do it after the fact?  It doesn’t make sense.

Yes the doors are exactly like the ones I have in my house in Europe, from about 20-30 years ago or more.  You have to use the key inside and outside to lock or unlock.

If RG couldn’t get out the front door per IJP then how was it left wide open per AK?  That doesn’t make sense at all.  And it especially doesn’t make sense that there were zero footprints under the window if it was a true break-in.  Or that the body was moved.  Or that the clothing was taken off after the attack.

If the defense say the DNA on the bra clasp was contaminated by the forensic team from Rome why couldn’t they get a DNA sample from each of those team members to see if it matched up at all to the data from the original sample?

It just seemed like Judge Hellman didn’t want to be bothered to prolong the appeal any longer to investigate these things more thoroughly.

Posted by believing on 10/21/11 at 06:43 PM | #


Thank you for your comment and presenting it in a mature and civil fashion.

Professionally, I am a CPA. Part of accounting, (moreso related to auditors, but a still major part of investigating financial data) is what’s called “professional skepticism”.

And I agree, Steve is far more qualified than I am to do an investigation. No competition there.

However, when he writes on his blog something about living “in the age of skepticism” in a negative way (I’d recount the context but it gets to conveluded - just find on his blog where he talks about baby rattles in a tirade against Peggy Ganong) I start to feel like he has a lack of skepticism for his own position.

I do become more skeptical of him when he misstates the prosecutions case on national TV.

Also, I’m pretty sure the Troy Davis case precedes Amanda Knox. As does the West Memphis 3 (not that they needed his help there), and Martin Tankleff among others. Can he comment on case while with the FBI? No.

Let’s just say I’d like to see Steve take his skills and help others in the future as opposed to becoming Amanda’s body guard.

Also, I think the apt description would be “out-of-touch” as opposed to “long lost”...but either way.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 10/21/11 at 08:22 PM | #

believing, Sorry I was going to warn you that some of the crime scene photos were very graphic and I forgot. And Dempsey had the gall to write that the victim probably didn’t feel anything!

The thing with the DNA clasp is that it was on the floor to begin with. It probably would have been contaminated even if it was found on November 2. The clasp is “smoking gun” evidence against Sollecito and the defense had to pull out all the stops to discredit it. By luck or pluck they got Carla Vecchiotti as an independent expert who went far beyond anything that was said in her report—even what any of the defense experts said—in her scathing testimony before the jury. I still have no idea how she reached her conclusions, but obviously she is emotionally vested in this case beyond her designated role, and judge Hellmann *should* have picked up on that.

1. I should correct my comment above to say that it isn’t clear why TMB is insensitive after luminol (but see AM Gross, 1999, for evidence that it is).
2. Does anyone know about the Naruto cartoon that was opened on Sollecito’s computer at 9:26? I’m assuming this file was in his bittorrent queue and opened automatically—since it was still being modified when the police seized the computer on November 6—but I don’t know for sure.

Posted by brmull on 10/21/11 at 08:34 PM | #

Hi Peter.  you say “The Massei report is simply a summary of a far greater body of evidence presented to the trial jury in 2009 which was not presented to the appeal jury in 2011 except in the sense that it was available.”
What does that matter? The sentenza must be self-supporting. What is not in the report , it is to be understood, didn’t contribute to the decision.This is how it works in our system, that which you call report is in fact part and parcel with the verdict and sentence , its check list, you might say. A sentenza based on evidence other than that mentioned in the report is invalid for that alone.

On the other hand, the appeal court had all the transcripts of every word spoken in court in the first trial, beside every single written submission, power-point presentation, document or object which was offered in evidence in the first trial, whether mentioned in the Massei report or not; and each of the counsels could have the particular bits they choose to enhance re- examined in the second trial: the appeal court can refuse to acquire new evidence, to order new expert exams, to hear new witnesses or hear again old ones; what they cannot do is refuse to go over anything that is on record already.

“The prosecution case at trial was fast, precise and very extensive. The defense rebuttal was hesitant and weak and sessions were several times canceled while they tried to come up with additional points.”
The prosecution case collapsed on key points (motive; premeditation) even in the first trial; in fact the court made up their own case, that which you read in the Massei report, and (perhaps because that’s not really their job) they didn’t do a good job either: quite faulty, in fact.

“The prosecution covered hundreds of evidence points and as you may know even one can be enough for conviction.”

No, you’re mistaken here. As I know our law of evidence, one point of circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction. One eye witness to the offense, yes, one confession, yes, one of any kind of evidence that requires no reasoning to connect the offense and the accused, yes. But when, as in this case, there is no direct proof of guilt, points of circumstantial evidence must be several (molteplici) facts: 1) quite proven in themselves (certi) ; 2) each of them open to no other reasonable explaination than another fact, of which direct proof is lacking, constituting an element of the offense (gravi e precisi); 3)  consistent with each other (concordanti).  What the Massei report generally seems to ignore is that practically none of their points of evidence is open to no other reasonable explaination than the one they held true;that some of them are uncertain, and some downright fictional. That much one can tell just from the report alone. And this is why I found it a distressing reading, appalling, humiliating. I had hoped better of our justice system for that poor butchered girl.

Posted by sae on 10/21/11 at 09:02 PM | #

Thanks brmull:

“There are pictures of her’s and Knox’s door here:

It’s an old fashioned mortise lock that requires a skeleton-type key to lock on either side…The front door…..also could not be opened from the inside without a key.”

That’s just what I was looking for.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 10/21/11 at 09:03 PM | #


I agree. If RG hadnt been so stupid and gone to the police initially i think the outcome might have been different. Im sure his thinking was that he couldnt afford to get caught given the scene in the house within such a short period of time of being caught in the school and panicked.

The Massei report seems to try and fit the evidence to the crime. (It even had to justify why the apparent murder weapon would have found itself at Meredith’s house). In my view the truth of what actually happened is very different.

Posted by People lie, evidence doesnt. on 10/21/11 at 09:48 PM | #


RG is relatively innocent in my opinion and is rather dull in the head.  He apparently went to a disco for a dance and when the seriousness of the crime settled in his brain, he fled. He did not have a million dollar lawyer either.  He was trapped.

AK and RS planned their actions meticulously.  They cleaned up the evidences, prepared for the staged break-in and prepared joint alibis.  They still need each other only because they don’t trust each other perfectly.  Both are from broken homes and lack trust, love and feelings. I think it was in their master plan to set up RG.

I have just read the full version of the Massei report (slowly and carefully) and Massei has done an excellent job in my limited opinion.

I just wish to mention one small thing: all evidences are circumstantial in nature- the criminals are usually not kind enough to keep a video recording of their action! However, all accepted evidences must be explained with reasonable accuracy.  For example, one thing not at all explained by Massei: how the computers of AK, MK and RS (one of the two computers) became unusable?  We have RS as the computer expert and he was worried about their surfing history.

Posted by chami on 10/23/11 at 08:29 PM | #


RG is not so dull as he is portrayed. He has the best handwriting of the three, and arguably the best writing too, assuming he composed this note himself:

(Does anyone else ever accidently type IJP instead of PMF into the search bar and wonder why the search comes up nothing?)

What Rudy has is impulsivity and terrible judgement. He had a great support system and he did his best to sabotage it, although I understand now from prison he’s trying to rebuild his bridges.

He tried to use the disco to establish an alibi. He fled, yes, but there is no correlation between intelligence and staying put.

It was of course Knox and Sollecito’s plan to set up Guede, after the fact, if not before. But they hardly carried it off perfectly. The details of their alibis were out of sync from the beginning. Last night I was rereading Knox’s testimony for Massei, in particular the part about how she forgot her towel and described scooting around on a bathmat. Who could possibly believe that? (Incidentally the video shows that there is no place to keep towels in the bathroom, so Rudy’s statement that he repeatedly went and got towels from the bathroom shows HE HAD NEVER BEEN IN THE BATHOOM.)

Anyway—the fried hard drives. I’ve said before this is inexplicable but I’m certain (I have some training in this area) that a data recovery expert could have gotten something if not everything off the drives. Why did the defense not ask for this? Instead they asked for investigation into how the drives got damaged. Presumably they knew there is nothing on the drives that will help their case, and they would be better off to leave the question in doubt.

Posted by brmull on 10/23/11 at 11:53 PM | #

Here are my sources for the above post.

Meredith/Knox bathroom video:’e-poi-c’e-il-video-integrale-parte-8/

The one view of the bathroom that the above video doesn’t show:

Sollecito’s appeal (Italian). Conspicuously doesn’t ask for data recovery to be attempted:

Posted by brmull on 10/24/11 at 12:50 AM | #


Thanks for the links! 

I said RG is dull in the sense that he failed to see how his actions will be seen by others.  In many poor countries, lots of stress is put on a neat handwriting.  But then I cannot understand how AK makes careless spelling mistakes- with both online and off-line spelling checkers.  This is part of an attitude problem that says: I don’t care!

I also read his (RG) bio: he failed to use the help and support that would have been available in younger days. Part of this is environmental.  Judgement is a product of maturity and all the three (RG, RS, AK) are terribly immature. RG (as a person) is a failure of the system.

I have a feeling that only AK knew that the game will end with one dead.  I doubt RS and RG knew the script to the end.  This is just a feeling.

Anyway, nobody keeps towels in a shared bathroom. Particularly students.  And there were some frictions.

According to the report, the computers of AK, MK and one of the computers of RS ended with dead hard disks. Strange indeed!

Posted by chami on 10/24/11 at 05:52 AM | #


Most of us have the feeling that Guede didn’t know the script. That and the fact that he has been found responsible, accounts for some people’s more favorable feeling about him than the other two.

The only thing that Guede has acknowledged under oath is that he was not involved in the murder and that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. It’s conceivable that this is true in the strictest sense. Regardless, he’s free to amend any of his other statements without risk of perjury and I’m increasingly convinced that he will eventually come clean. I wouldn’t be surprised if he has an “insurance policy” confession on file with his lawyer in the event anything should happen to him.

Posted by brmull on 10/24/11 at 07:00 AM | #

Hi brmull I cannot understand why RG doesn’t just tell all that he knows. The least he could do to help the Kerchers [he was anxious that they should know he didn’t ‘kill their baby girl’] so instead of going on about the shadow on the wall etc.. why didn’t he just drop them in it when he had the chance?

Posted by Melanie on 10/24/11 at 06:27 PM | #


Who knows what’s in RG’s mind. I get the feeling he wants to come clean but something is holding him back. One possibility is money: He and his lawyer Biscotti want to be paid for any interviews. Another is that he fears for his own safety, though if he told everything he knows he could no longer be blackmailed. The final possibility is that he judged—probably correctly—that his testimony in Hellmann’s court would not be found credible, and he felt like the whole thing was a racist charade, and he just didn’t want to participate. In any event the stars are aligned for him to confess eventually, but in truth he knows little that we can’t figure out ourselves from the little clues he’s let slip as well as the other evidence.

Posted by brmull on 10/24/11 at 11:04 PM | #

My feeling is that RG will not talk because he risks not being believed once again and possibly losing all chance of parole.  He would only talk if he could get off the hook completely or get less prison time now, but he tried to explain his story in the appeal already and wasn’t believed.

I’m still not convinced of his role on the scene but the posts above about the towels was interesting.  It is still possible that there were towels on the floor, from a previous shower as the girls weren’t that great at cleaning up and it was a student. house.  When one sees the crime scene video clip, one realizes just how scrappy and ‘student-like’ the house was in terms of furnishings and size.  It was really quite small with only the most basic furnishings.  It makes me sad again to see it because it reminds me of my own student days in Europe.  The person who did the final blow had to be completely evil or psychotic, as the blade went through her neck.  That makes me sick to say it, but this was someone with a really evil intent and lack of remorse. 

The one that I trust the least in terms of testimony is actually RS, the dark horse with the strange fascination with knives and animal porn and lack of a social life, the loner spending much time with manga comics and who knows what else on the computer.  He seems the most prone to a sudden violent act like that while under the influence of drugs or trying to show off to his new girlfriend. However I see AK as loving the spotlight, drama and attention which can lead to doing something impulsive.  As well she could be someone who goes in and out of reality.  You can see that she loves to make up stories and to write and to dream.  RG seems more of the type who would have been led into this situation.  I dont’ think he is intellectually stupid but he was probably stoned a lot of the time and also incredibly immature socially, when you see his drifting about the town and sitting on toilets falling asleep and breaking in nursery schools to sleep and use the kitchen. 

However the whole thing still seems beyond belief, for any of the three to have done this crime.  It staggers the imagination.  I read a story recently of two very intelligent young men sometime like the 1920s who killed a young boy just for the intellectual challenge and excitement of doing a murder.  They never showed remorse afterwards but sort of bragged about it.  But no matter what the evidence is here, it is still so difficult to imagine the actual crime happening and why it happened.  I guess that was the problem for the judge and jury in the appeal.

This excerpt from the AK prison diary is interesting because she does not say anything about being hit or abused (no food, water) by the police during the interrogation “I don’t like the police as much, though they are nice to me…”  I’m not sure how the diary was taken and published.  It seems like an invasion of privacy to me, even for a prisoner.  On the link it says that some people doubt its authenticity but the way it is written sounds like her writing.  She sounds very young and naive in the writing.

Here she sounds delusional “I told him I was happy because I was able to finally give, what I know, to the police” meaning I suppose the written statement she gave the police later.  But it is sort of saying “what I know about who killed Meredith” meaning it was Lumumba.

Is this diary real - does anyone know?  Was it used in the evidence?
I find it quite bizarre.  So sing-song and carefree.  Then later on the last page she says something like ‘someone had to help me remember’ and now I’m sure and secure in my mind.  There is a part of me that wants to think, of course she didn’t do anything, she was just a young sweet girl and so confused by the whole experience.  But things just don’t make sense overall.  Why would she be acting like she just remembered being at RS’s house all of a sudden?  It’s like a fiction story that she is writing Why would she not mention that she wasn’t sure it was Lumumba there after all?  Why would she say “I hope they find the real killer(s)” but not say “and it isn’t Lumumba” or maybe even “and it might be Lumumba but I’m not sure now”.  It’s like someone who is in a dream and that is kind of scary too.  And no mention there of being horrified by the murder and the way it happened, or thank goodness I wasn’t home because I would have been so scared or killed myself.  Just “my nice friend got killed” and by the way, I got rice for my dinner and it was good.  Very strange.  I’m not saying that makes her a killer but it is odd.

Posted by believing on 10/25/11 at 07:04 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Who Is Behind Repeated Attempts To Make False Claims Of Kercher Suit Against Knox Go Viral?

Or to previous entry Media Starting To Take A Closer Look At The Knox PR Shills With Nina Burleigh Exhibit One